Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.575 of 1983, decided on 25th April, 1987.

---Ss. 2 (c) (i) & 13--Eviction of tenant--Relationship of landlord and tenant--Proof--Where rent deed in respect of disputed premises exhibited by landlord in ejectment proceedings to prove existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between him and tenant was admitted in evidence without any objection on behalf of tenant, such tenant, held, could not later on contend that said rent deed could not have been relied upon as same was not duly proved.--[ Evidence].

---S. 15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Finding of fact--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Finding of fact arrived at by Appellate Tribunal below, based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, held, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction when petitioner could not point out any misreading of evidence on the part of Appellate Tribunal--High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction was concerned only with question whether Court or Tribunal below had acted within its jurisdiction--High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction; could not sit in appeal over judgment passed by Appellate Tribunal below.

Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar P L D 1974 S C 139; Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail P L D 1981 S C 246 and Hamayat Khan v. Ahmad Din 1983 SCMR 59 ref.

Saeedul Jafar for Petitioner.

Amir Alam for Respondent No.3.

Date of hearing: 25th April, 1987.

Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows:-

On 25-11-1975 Mst. Farrukh Taj alias Mst. Parrukh Rafi filed a petition for ejectment from. house No.ll Birdwood Road (Property No.S-78/R/11) Lahore against Malik Abdul Ghani on the ground that he was her tenant vide rent deed dated 17-2-1975 (Annexure 'G'); that he paid rent for one month and then defaulted in payment of rent. Abdul Ghani resisted the petition on the plea that he entered the house in question on 13-5-1975 under an agreement to sell executed in his favour by Mst. Farrukh Taj. The Rent Controller, Lahore framed any issue as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. After recording evidence the learned Rent Controller vide the order dated 25-5-1982 came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. He, therefore, dismissed the petition for ejectment.

Mst. -Farrukh Taj during pendency of the petition for ejectment sold the house in question to Mehr Ghulam Dastgir and his two minor sons on 18-3-1977. They were, therefore, impleaded as party in the ejectment petition.

2. Mehr Ghulam Dastgir and others challenged the order of Rent Controller dated 26-5-1982 before learned Additional District Judge Lahore who vide the impugned order dated 22-12-1982 accepted the appeal, set aside the said order and came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. He therefore, directed Malik Abdul Ghani to hand over possession of the premises to Mehr Ghulam Dastgir. It was held by the learned Additional District Judge that the agreement to sell Ex. PW 1/1 was not executed by Mat. Farrukh Taj; that the statement of Qadeer Ahmed Wasiqa Navees and Bashir Ahmad property dealer were discrepant on the point of the time when the stamp paper was purchased and also on the point as to who purchased the said stamp paper that Mst. Farrukh Taj was in urgent need of money and as such it did not appeal to reason that a period of two years in the agreement to sell would be fixed for execution of the sale deed; that the husband of Mst. Farrukh Tal was alleged to be present at the time of execution of agreement to sell but his signatures are not present on the agreement to sell and that the evidence of Handwriting Expert did not inspire confidence. It was held that in fact he did not at all appear to be an expert. The learned Additional District Judge further held that Malik Abdul Ghani did execute rent note Ex. A.1 on 12-2-1975.

3. In support of this constitutional petition it is contended firstly, that the rent deed Ex. A 1 was not duly proved on record of the case and as such should not have been relied upon and secondly that the impugned judgment dated 22-12-1982 was based on misreading of evidence. No other point was urged in support of this petition.

Mst. Farrukh Taj appeared as AW.1 before the Rent Controller. She clearly stated in court on 12-3-1977 that the rent deed Ex. A .1 was executed in her presence; that she signed the same and that Abdul Ghani respondent did not pay rent after March 1975. The rent deed was exhibited and admitted in evidence without any abjection on behalf of Abdul Ghani, present petitioner. In view of this it cannot be held that the rent deed Ex. A .1 was riot duly proved on record of the case.

The second contention that the impugned order dated 22-12-1982 was based on misreading of evidence is also without any substance. The learned counsel was not able to point out any misreading of evidence by the appellate Court. The only contention in this behalf of the petitioner was that the document Ex. A 1 was not duly proved and admitted in evidence. As held above this argument is without any force. The learned Additional District Judge found as a fact that the agreement to sell dated 13-5-1975 was not executed by Mst. Farrukh Taj. It being a finding of fact cannot be questioned through a constitutional petition. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the impugned judgment in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It only is concerned with the question whether the Court or tribunal below had acted within its jurisdiction. Reliance for this is placed on Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar (PLD 1974 SC 139), Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail (PLD 1981 SC 246) and Hamayat Khan v. B Ahmad Din (1983 SCMR 59). The learned counsel did not question the jurisdiction of learned Additional District Judge Lahore to decide the matter before him through the impugned judgment. The impugned order passed in appeal was final and with jurisdiction even if for the sake of argument it could be said that another conclusion was possible on evidence adduced, then also it does not make out a case for interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. We are clear in our mind that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge was correct on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective claims.

We find no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.

H.B.T./A-124 /2 Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.